A few threads in the past and present have sparked me to start this debate thread because of a growing and devoloping theory I've had for years and years now.

Now, I don't want this to turn into a BS or ******* match, I want us to be able to discuss these things like the grown intelligent and intellectual adults we are. We should be able to do that.....I hope.

When talking with many hunters over the years about different calibers, I have heard many and numerous storys of smaller calibers being shot at great distances successfully, but you don't seem to hear about them on here.

This next paragraph is just using the 7mm as an example....As I am a .284 nut, I have quite an intimate knowledge of the 7mm's, which is why I used it as compared to other calibers, also the fact that the heavy 7mm's can carry BC's that are VERY close to (and in some cases higher) than the larger diameter calibers. Also, since we had the 7mm vs .338 conversation a few weeks ago, I decided this would be a much more interesting and friendly way to have this discussion.

Here is some opinion and a little controversy from my thoughts...

I have faith that a really heavy, high-BC bullet (ex: a 180 VLD or 190 Matrix) from a big 7mm (.284), such as a 7mmSTW, 7 RUM or 7mm Allen Magnum, could be effective out beyond 1000-1500 yards, although I have no personal experience killing anything that far. I have heard about and seen videos and pictures of real people and true stories, killing very large game at great distances with a 7mm RemMag on the interwebz....And Carlos Hathcock made numerous 1,000+ yard kills with a .30-06 Sprg MIA and some very impressive shots with a Rem 40X .308 Win, with a crappy scope, and primative technology (as compared to today). So my brain begs to know why do we actually "need" these enormous calibers with all the weapons and bullet technology we have today. If people could successfully do it without them back then, why do we "need" them now? I understand everything has its limitations.....Which is what separates a .22LR from a .338 RUM. So as far as velocity and energy, bullet weight, etc....I understand all that.

Now, just so you know, I am NOT putting down anyone's choice of caliber. "You brought it home...You feed it." That's what my dad used to always say when I was growing up.

Everyone has a preference and a choice. I just want to know WHY you bought what you did, and WHY you felt it was the only option for your task at hand, forsaking all other calibers out there?

I have a theory, but yall will probably think I'm nuts....I just want opinions rather than a bunch of heated BS. I want opinions as to why, if you think my theory is correct, or incorrect, not a bunch of "because it just does...." type of answers. I also don't want a bunch of negatory answers, I want factual evidence as to why my theory would be correct or incorrect. I have been gathering this theory for a while. I don't want a bunch of charts that have been manipulated and spun to work in favor of your choice, etc....I want to see hard factual evidence of what makes the monster bores better than standard large magnum calibers at long range.

Here's my theory...

I think the larger bores with the heavier bullets might carry the energy farther out, but they also move slightly slower from the get-go, and with a much larger overall mass and more bulbous shape, would lose velocity a great deal faster, which is why you need so much powder and a such a large case capacity for them to be efficient at such long ranges......

Wouldn't a faster moving bullet that weighs less, and has a more aerodynamic profile, follow a better trajectory to the same target at the same distance, which in turn, even though it is a lighter bullet, will expel the same amount of energy, based on the higher velocity it maintains as it reaches the intended target, as compared to a larger, slower moving projectile with a rapidly decreasing velocity?

These are just thoughts I have, and I would love to hear everyone's opinion on them.

__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

No, the reason was because majority of your average shooters don't possess the skill set to simply pick up a rifle, dial it in, and start shooting at 1,500 yards and drilling the target, and most will never even attempt distances like that. Also, because I rarely hear of animal kills beyond the 1,500 yard mark.

I haven't tried to shoot my rifles at 1,500 so I don't know how they would perform at that distance.

This was more for a theory and possibility type of discussion topic to make you think, as opposed to a why limit yourself to a certain yardage...

Although I do believe we are on the right track for this discussion thread. Come on yall, I wanna hear everyone's opinion.

__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

All I want to say is, and I have done this on many occasions with 7mm's / 180's.

You need to try to spot your hits / misses, or see, if you can see it, the impact or dust cloud of a 180 gr 7mm with a MV of 3150 plus, off a rock at 1500 yards compared to a slower MV 300 gr .338 with a MV of 2800 fps. Or listen to the report back from the two of them off rock or steel at 1000. Or actually watch game hit with either of them from 1000 plus. Believe me when I tell you they are both good rifles, but not even close to the same league for terminal performance.

Now take it past a mile and good luck even trying to tell if you hit the target until you get there with a 7. But with a 338 it will be evident.

All I want to say is, and I have done this on many occasions with 7mm's / 180's.

You need to try to spot your hits / misses, or see, if you can see it, the impact or dust cloud of a 180 gr 7mm with a MV of 3150 plus, off a rock at 1500 yards compared to a slower MV 300 gr .338 with a MV of 2800 fps. Or listen to the report back from the two of them off rock or steel at 1000. Or actually watch game hit with either of them from 1000 plus. Believe me when I tell you they are both good rifles, but not even close to the same league for terminal performance.

Now take it past a mile and good luck even trying to tell if you hit the target until you get there with a 7. But with a 338 it will be evident.

Jeff

Jeff, I feel you are taking this personally....It is not personal to anyone, but me. I am just curious as to everyone's thoughts and opinoins on the subject at hand. So, don't feel like you are intruding on the thread in any way. I started this to discuss my thoughts....And also after that gets discussed to discuss other thoughts for other questions and things later on by other members.

__________________
"I'm just a peckerwood who lives in the hills with too many guns..." - Bob Lee Swagger

No, nothing personal at all. But I don't choose to be part of it. Why?? and this is not personal either. But I feel this "debate" will be mainly discussed by people that probably have not shot much past 1000 let alone 1500. And for sure by many that have never shot both a 7mm @ 3150 plus and a 338 @ 2800 side by side at or past 1500 yards over and over. I have and I know how it really is so I need not be a part of any debate other than what I have already stated.

I am a 7mm fan for where they shine. If you doubt that look up my 7mm-300 thread and see what I did there. I have built and owned 3 of them. But all the hype and theory in the world is not going to get a good 7mm to hit with the authority of a good 338 past 1000. Thus like I said, you probably just need to see it in the field.